3 ms·
We would have a lot more clarity here if the following hadn't occurred: 1. Google sniffed the packets 2. Google stonewalled the investigation (receiving a $25
by ethanbond 7y ago
We would have a lot more clarity here if the following hadn't occurred:
1. Google sniffed the packets
2. Google stonewalled the investigation (receiving a $25k fine for doing so)
3. Google ignored the recommendation to have counsel review the design
But those things did occur, so I believe it is a leap of faith to simply accept their word that 2 years of wardriving people's wifi traffic was "an accident."
- shadowgovt 7y agoI've done too much engineering on large-scale projects with cross-office stakeholders for that leap to require any faith; it aligns with my own experience. ;) It doesn't take more than a handful of misconfigured flags to find out you've been accidentally logging every packet going through your router. The backstop against that is usually I'd run out of storage space, and Google certainly doesn't. The product counsel oversight failure was a major error in this project. It's the specific step that's supposed to help Google avoid $25k fines, and I don't doubt someone internally got their head thunked over that.
- gowld 7y agoIt wasn't an accident. https://www.wired.com/images_blogs/threatlevel/2012/05/unredactedfccgoog.pdf https://www.wired.com/images_blogs/threatlevel/2012/05/unred...
- shadowgovt 7y agoGood find; this is much more informative. Clearly not accidental. Though still definitely an error; product council would have told them to knock it off, and it's unclear whether it was maliciousness or ignorance that nobody brought them in for consult.